Long on angst and short on plot, Terminator Salvation is Mad Max without any of the fun, a joyless, character-less trip into a post-apocalyptic wasteland that forgets to give viewers any reason to come along. McG is so busy working on aesthetic credibility that he forgets how to edit action scenes or the movie as a whole, which feels like a disjointed collection of footage that has yet to be assembled into a final form. Almost a silent movie at times, perhaps because its foreign leads, Christian Bale and Sam Worthington struggle to produce any kind of convincing American accent, Terminator Salvation is a trip through a wasteland that leads nowhere. And much like another summer killer robots movie, the only thing memorable about it are the special effects.

The Terminator movies, even Terminator 3, focused on a fairly simple plot with a clear antagonist, a straightforward goal and explosive set pieces. Terminator Salvation jettisons everything but the last, sideswiping audiences who expected a good time at the theater only to get an action movie that models itself after a Cormac McCarthy novel. Had McG been less worried about being taken seriously, he might have actually applied the lessons of his work on the audience friendly Charlie’s Angels movies. Instead with We Are Marshall and Terminator Salvation, McG tries desperately to be taken seriously, but all he manages to do is be a downer.

Terminator Salvation is probably the most expensive post-apocalyptic B-movie ever made, that takes itself more seriously than most Academy Award nominees. But not only isn’t it entertaining, unlike the previous Terminator movies it doesn’t even have anything to say about human condition. Having aimed too high, Terminator Salvation doesn’t deliver on either front. Its absurd premise of a Terminator who thinks he’s human and dies when his heart is removed is an absurdly literary metaphor that not only makes no sense, but is painfully stupid to boot, leading to an ending with some trite observation about the human heart. An ironic preoccupation for a movie that bypasses both the heart and the mind entirely, for a final product that is as inhuman and cold as the machines who are its antagonists themselves.

SR: So Shoe, a deceptively simple name for a great game?

PM: Absolutely. But the simple is also great. Like the shoe.

SR: So Peter, what is Shoe like as a game?

PM: Shoe will change games, it will change gaming, it will change how you even think of games. After playing Shoe you will look at ordinary games and wonder what they are. You will look at game consoles and be unable to connect them with game playing.

SR: So basically Shoe will make you retarded?

PM: Parts of you. Only parts of you. The parts of you that are cynical and unable to connect with a spiritually more aware world.

SR: And that covers 90 percent of me. Okay so in Peter Molyneux’s Shoe, do you play a Shoe, are you on a quest for Shoes? Is your main character called Shoe?

PM: No, no. you are not getting the big picture. Shoe is meant to make you think of shoes in a whole new light. How do you see shoes now?

SR: As well something I wear on my feet.

PM: And that is all wrong. Have you ever thought that shoes could be your friends?

SR: Generally not.

PM: Have you ever connected emotionally with your shoes?

SR: I’m not French, so no.

PM: Peter Molyneux’s Shoe will change all that. It will create an intimate emotional connection between you and your shoes.

SR: So this game will turn people into shoe fetishists?

PM: That is the narrow minded American in you talking. Shoe will elevate your understanding, it will enable you to view your world from the world of a shoe.

SR: Alright, now we’re getting somewhere. Do you play a shoe in the game?

PM: If you choose to, you can play a shoe.

SR: What else can you play?

PM: Anything you want!

SR: Oh come on. Just tell me what the game is about already.

PM: It’s about your soul!

SR: Oh crap.

PM: Have you ever woken in the middle of the night from a strange dream believing that you had no friends left in the world only to discover that your only true friend is your shoe?

SR: Is this how you get all your ideas?

PM: Shoe is about a quest but the quest is already complete before you begin it. You can do anything you want in Shoe.

SR: Can you fly in Shoe?

PM: If you decide to, yes.

SR: Can you scuba dive in Shoe?

PM: If you imagine it, you can imagine doing it.

SR: I see. Can you return Shoe for a refund?

PM: Regrettably not in the real world, but you can imagine returning it for a refund which is even more satisfying.

SR: Well this has been fun, in an awkward and painful sort of way. Peter Molyneux’s Shoe, coming to a GameStop’s discount bin near you. It involves shoes in some way.

PM: And the human soul.

SR: Shut up.

The internet is fast becoming a “cesspool” where false information thrives, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said yesterday. Speaking with an audience of magazine executives visiting the Google campus here as part of their annual industry conference, he said their brands were increasingly important signals that content can be trusted.

The internet was always a “cesspool”. Yes it’s gotten worse lately, especially with organized groups operating out of places like 4chan but brands don’t have much of a track record as the solution. Gawker Media is one of the best known blog brands, but it frequently and casually prints things that are completely inaccurate or untrue, just to bring in traffic. And when it comes to mainstream media brands, should we really count the kind of hoaxes that have been printed and distributed that way? Is the New Republic a brand that has any credibility?

And when it comes to using brands as trusted messages, should we really go into the whole viral video area which involves trusted brands planting unbranded advertising content on video sharing sites, especially Google’s own YouTube?

It is way too easy to fake something on the internet. On the other hand the counterpunch to that is that the internet makes it a lot easier to bring people together to expose the fakes. Something a lot of the brands aren’t too happy with. Without the internet, the CBS evening news brand might be a lot stronger and Dan Rather might still have his job. So brands are overrated, transparency is underrated. The internet is a cesspool but out of that cesspool you also have the potential for creating transparency and it’s transparency not branding that provides credibility. And you can’t buy transparency with AdSense ad buys.

The most profound failure of the live action Hellboy movies was that they didn’t matter, they couldn’t capture the dark sketched universe of the comics, the tension, the intensity, the homages, any of it. Sure the creature design was nice, but that’s all you can really say in defense of Del Toro’s Hellboy movies, themselves easily outdone by the animated movies that were far from perfect, but that did work. So why bring this up? Guillermo Del Toro is talking about a third Hellboy movie.

Meanwhile, del Toro is awaiting word on whether U will embrace a follow-up to “Hellboy 2: The Golden Army.” The big-budget film opened in the heat of summer and fell short of blockbuster status in the U.S. but has performed well overseas.

“I think they’ll decide when the last euro hits the piggybank,” del Toro said. “We laid the groundwork to have a magnificent third act. I’d like to return to an action franchise with 60-year-old actor Ron Perlman, because he’ll be scratching at that age when I get to it.”

Langley said the studio is interested and may work with del Toro to add a TV series and online segments to broaden the following before making the series finale.

If Del Toro’s hobbit movies are solid hits that deliver, and I have trouble believing they won’t be, Del Toro may well have his shot at a third Hellboy movie, but based on the two he’s done so far, he probably shouldn’t. Looking back if Del Toro really wants a third Hellboy movie made, he can stick to producing and turn the project over to someone who can bring it together.

How to Waste 150 Million Dollars by the Producers, Writers and Director of GI Joe

Step 1. Take over a recognized franchise that has its own fan base, distinctive characters and stories, instead of just creating your own.

Step 2. Throw out everything about the franchise except a few character names and the basic concept. Replace everything with generic gimmicks, actors playing wacky characters, a big action set piece and nothing to distinguish it from any of the 30 movies just like it.

Step 3. Decide if I’m talking about Star Trek, Transformers, GI Joe the movie, or any of the many many other big summer action releases that follow the same exact template.

Not only does the GI Joe movie have a disturbing resemblance to Team America World Police. I mean an international American led police force blowing up the Eiffel Tower. Seriously has no one on this project seen Team America World Police? Is Destro a member of FAG? Anyone on the Joe team have horrible flashbacks to CATS? I don’t even want to know.

Of course there isn’t much competition. There’s only so long that UP or Star Trek or Night at the Museum could rule the box office. And Year One, despite being retarded enough to score 20 mil, wasn’t retarded enough to win the Idiocracy demographic far enough to shove The Hangover or The Proposal aside. Of course at number 4, this means that 3 out of the top 4 movies appeal to people who should be somehow prevented from reproducing.